Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 197407123yb 1. A Special School Tax of $0.255 on the 5100.00 of property valuation shall be levied on all property in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School district. 2. A Special Fire Tax of $0.10 on the 5100.OD o£ property valuation shall be levied on all property in the Greater Chapel Hill Fire District. 3, A Special Fire Tax of $0.10 on the 5100.00 of property valuation shall be levied on all property in the South Orange Fire Aistrict. 4. A Special Fire Tax of $0.04 on the 5100.00 of property valuation on all property within the Orange Rural Fire Protection District. 5. A Special Fire Tax of 50.08 on the $100.OD of property valuation on all property within the Eno Rural Fire Protection District. 6. A Special Fire Tax of $0.10 on the 5100.00 of property valuation on all property with the New Hope Rural Fire Protection District. 7. A Special Fire Tax of $0.08 on the 5100.00 of property valuation on all property within the Efland Rural Fire Protection District. e. A Special Sanitary Tax of $0.22 on the $100.OD of property valua- tion of all property within the Dogwood Acres Sanitary District.. 9. A special Fire Tax of 50.08 en the $100.00 property valuation on all property within the Orange Grove Rural Fire Protection Districts. Upon motion of Commissioner Richard E. Whitted, seconded by Commissioner Henry S. Walker, it was moved and adopted that the 1974-1975 Appropriation Resolu- tion and Tax Levy Resolution as presented by the county Administrator, setting tax rate at sixty (60d) cents per 5100.00 assessed value and this special Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District tax of twenty-five (25G) cents on $100.00 property valuation plus the special fire tax on the (7) seven fire protection Districts plus the service district tax be approved. Upon motion of Commissioner Henry S. walker, seconded by Commissioner Melvin Whitfield, it was moved, that the 1974-1975, budget be amended to approve the 51,500 for the Sediment Structure study as requested by the prangs-Alamance Water Systems and that same be restored to the Utility Fund. Chairman Walker called for a vote on the motion. Commissioners Norman ~ Walker, Henry 5. Walker, and Melvin Whitfield voted aye. Commissioners Flora Garrett and Richard E. Whitted voted nay. chairman Walker then declared the motion passed. v Commissioner Flora Garrett inquired as to w'iat the Board wished to do about pursuing a grant application to the I,aw Enforcement Assistance Administra- tion. This grant would be used to finance a Rape Crisis Center. She reminded the Board that the deadline had been established as of July 17 and the County must be the grantee in the grant application. The Board felt that they needed more information prior to making a decision on the matter. Chairman Walker stated that he felt the Board should reach some decision on the request of Bill FIupman. The County Administrator was instructed to contact Mx. Hupman and to advise him that the County is just about to reach the break even paint on the matter. The Clerk inquired as to the plans of the Hoard relative to the July 16th meeting. She was instructed that this meeting (July 2, 1974) is being held in place of the regular Tuesday night meeting and that the Board does hereby officially caneel the July 16th meeting. There being no further business to come before the Hoard the meeting was adjourned. G~ ~ C. Norman Walker, Chairman Hetty June Hayes, Clerk Approved MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS July 12, 1974 The Hoard of County Commissioners of Orange County met in special called session on Friday, July 12, 1974, at 8 o'clock P.M, in the Commissioners Room at the Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. 39'7 Members Present: Chairman C. Norman Walker, and Commissioners Henry S. Walker, Flora Garrett, Richard E. Whitted, and Melvin Whitfield. Members Absent: None. Chairman Walker advised the Board that this meeting had been called at the request of James C. Wallace of Chapel Hill. Mr. Wallace stated that he was present as a private citizen on his behalf and some interested citizens ~ of the County and he filed the following petition and questions.with the Board: PETITION "Mr. Norman walker, chairman, and N,embers of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. On my own behalf, and on the behalf of other citizens of Drange County, I wish to petition the Board of Commissioners to seek an Advisory • Opinion from the Attorney General o£ North Carolina concerning the legal issues related to the County's participation in activities pursuant to the possible purchase and operation of certain utilities now owned by the.University of North Carolina. Specifically, I request that the Board forward to the Attorney General - for his consideration the attached list of five questions related to this matter, together with any other questions w&thh=..the Hoard might wish to add. QUESTIONS 1) Does Orange County have the authority, under the laws governing county .government (G. S. C}i., 153A) or under any other laws (such as the public utility laws, G. S.. Ch. 62, to operate an eleetric_power system or a telephone system? 2) Does Orange County have the authority to cooperate with the cities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, under the laws governing county government (G. S. Ch. 153A), or the law governing interlocal cooperation (G. S. Ch. 160A Art. 20) or any other laws, in a joirr_ venture involving an electric r power system ar a telephone system, or both? j 3) Does Orange County have the authority to subsidize of make contributions ~ to an electric power system pr a telephone system under the laws ~ governing county government (G. S. Ch. 153A)? 4) Does the city of Chapel Hill or carrbero have the authority to subsidize or make contributions to an electric power system or telephone system under the laws governing city government (G. S. Gh, 160A)? 5) If any of the city or county participants in a joint venture involving an electric power system or telephone system lack the substantive powers referred to in questions 1-4 above, can they validly create a non-profit corporation for such purposes and appropriate funds thereto?" He stated that he felt the Gounty Board should secure an opinion from the Attorney General's office prior to proceeding with participation in the Consumer Utility Corporation. Mr. Wallace then read the following from a letter dated January 29, 1973, from the firm of Tally, Tally & Bouknight addressed to John L. McKee and George Watts Hill, Jr, "A number of problems remain to be solved, and a great deal of work is yet to be done. The first priority is an evaluation of the utility systems by nationally recognized engineers on whose opinion the banking community and potential purchasers of bonds will rely. Bankers and bondholders must be assured that the utility properties can produce revenue sufficient to pay the debt service on the bonds. Much legal work is also ahead. The North Carolina courts have never decided whether a non-profit corporation can act on behalf of several political subdivisions; however, test case involving that question is now in progress in another part of the state. Counties are not specifically granted the power to own electric or telephone utilities, and cities are not specifically granted the power to operate telephone utilities by the General Statutes of North Carolina. A court test or legislation will likely be required before this non-profit corporation may sell bonds." Discussion ensued between Mr. Wallace, Mayor Lee and Members of the Board of Commissioners. ~ Upon motion of commissioner Flora Garrett, seconded by Commissioner Rickard E. Whitted, it was moved and adopted, that before the questions submitted by Mr. Wallace are dealt with further that they (the questions) first be referred to the firm a€ Tally, Tally & Bouknight, Attorneys for the Consumers Utility Corporation for their opinion with the request that an early response be given to the Soard. 39~ Commissioner Richard E. Whitted stated that he agreed with Commissioner Flora Garrett and that he would like £or the County Attorney to review the questions. Further discussion ensued between Mr. Wallace, Mayor Lee and Members of the Board. Commissioner Flora Garrett moved to amend her erigiaal motion by specifi- tally that the answer to these questions be presented no later than July 22nd to the Consumers Utility Corporation. Commissioner Richard E. Whitted agreed to this amendment. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion and the amended motion. A11 members voted aye. Chairman Walker then declared the motion passed. Mayor Lee requested that the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrbaro be allowed to submit question four (4) to the Attorney General themselves. The Board agreed to Mayor Lee's request. There being no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned. 7 L,~ C. Norman Walker, Chairman Betty June Hayes, Clerk Approved MINUTES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY $OARD OF CDMMISSIONERS July 22, 1974 The Board of Commissioners of Orange County met vn Monday, July 22, 1974, . at 8 P.M. in the Commissioners Room of the Courthouse in Hillsborough, North Carolina. Members Present: Chairman C. Norman Walker, and Commissioners Henry S. Walker, Flora Garrett, Richard E. Whitted, and Melvin Whitfield. Members Absent: None. Chairman Walker announced that this was a continuation of a special meeting that had been called for Friday, July 12, 1974, at the request of James C. Wallace of Chapel Hill. Chairman Walker inquired if anyone was present to speak in behalf ~oE the Consumer Utility Corporation. No one appeared. S. M. Gattis, County Administrator, presented the following Memorandum: "MEMORANDUM OF A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION HELP BETWEEN HONORABLE JOE TALLEY, REPRESENTING CONSUMERS UTILITIES AND MYSELF, JULY 22, 1974. John McKee contacted Joe Talley during the past week advising him to expect a telephone call from Mr. Lucius cheshzre, Orange County Attorney, concerning several questions posed by Mr. James Wallace. Mr. McKee also called Mr. Cheshire and asked him to discuss these questions with Mr. Talley. Mr. Cheshire called Mr. Talley who was out of town at that time and subsequently wrote him concerning these questions. Mr .. Cheshire is out of town until Wednesday of this week. Mr. Talley advised me that the question raised by Mr. Wallace have previously been raised as part of a seven page letter to the Church Commission which Mr. Talley's firm has answered. The church Commission has transferred the entire file including these questions and their answer to the Utilities Commission for a hearing as required by the statute directing disposal of the University Utilities. A hearing on this file is expected in early August. At this hearing these questions as well as others will be fully explored. Consumers Utilities has in fact held conferences with Mr. Lake at which these questions were discussed in the past few weeks. Mr. Talley is requesting the Board of Commissioners not to snbmitthese questions to the Attorney Generals Office at this time since they are questions taken out of context from a much larger question that will be fully explored before the Utilities Commission in early August. In the meantime he and Mr. Cheshire will be able to meet and prepare a formal response to the questions Mr. Wallace has raised. i I i It is Mr. Talley's intention to respond to you concerning these questions before the Utilities Commission hearing."